Debate contribution: Sexually Explicit Deepfake Images
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Sexually Explicit Deepfake Images
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111228
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There are a number of elements to that. First and foremost, there was a significant delay when the Assembly was not here, and that created problems. The deepfake image offence was originally to be brought forward as part of the Crime and Policing Bill that is going through Westminster — we would have simply piggybacked on those offences — but, unfortunately, it was moved as an amendment to a different Bill earlier in the mandate, and, because it was an amendment, we were unable to avail ourselves of it. That is why the Committee graciously said that we could take a further amendment through at Consideration Stage. The law is one part of it, but the removal of the material is the other part. Under the Online Safety Act 2023, there is a requirement on hosts of sites on which images and other material have been posted to remove it quickly. It does not provide a definition of "quickly". As the Member will know, that is Westminster legislation, because it relates to communication offences, but Ofcom is working on defining what speedy removal is and how it should be undertaken. That should help with protection. Undoubtedly, there is a genuine fear about the increase in the sophistication of the images. They are not what they used to be, with the rather sad cut-and-paste things that you could identify by eye. Most of the images are almost unidentifiable from a real image by the naked eye. There are also issues around AI-generated child pornography, for example, which have raised concerns. Thankfully, those are already covered in legislation, because they do not need to be images of real sexual abuse in order to qualify as images of sexual abuse. However, there is a need for us to refresh the law, constantly. There is also an issue of resource, because, as things become more complex, the amount of time that it takes to research and investigate those crimes becomes more complex. My recent visit to the cybercrime centre showed how there have been developments in that space that are allowing the police to speed up their investigations.
354 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.60 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.21 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.19 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:13 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.